On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:45:58 +0200, David Medlock <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Kristian Kilpi wrote:
>
>>  About DDT...
>> But it's absolutely good that DDT is banned  outside Africa, no question about it. It's clear that DDT is very harmful  substance.
>>
>
> Clear to whom?  How is it absolutely good?
>
> By the way its banned from being produced in most countries, so Africa has been out of luck until recently.  If they produce it they risk sanctions.
>
> It is theorized to thin eggshells but hasn't been shown to adversely affect humans.  Malaria on the other hand kills a person every 30 seconds.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
> http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm
>
> You must be confusing it with Agent Orange or DES, both of which are dangerous.
>
> -DavidM

Hmmm... maybe.

But one thing is clear (hopefully ;) ) that (almost) any substance is poisonous if eaten (or otherwise consumed) too much. Even water (if you drink it enough, it'll kill you; hyponatremia or water intoxication). So it's likely that DDT is also poisonous if the amounts are large enough. Well, what's too much? I don't know. But, because DDT has an cumulative effect in the food chain, it can be a serious problem in the future. It could take one million year, or just 30 years, but it's possible that when a critical mass of DDT around in the globe is reached, we are in deep s**t. ;)

David Medlock wrote:
> - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.  Increasing C02 + more humans is not conclusive.  You need reproducible results and double blind studies, not a 'consensus'.

Please rephrase. There is plenty of evidence of CO2 caused by humans. There is no evidence of CO2 caused by humans, which you find convincing.

Yet I think you've got your facts seriously wrong here. I've never heard anyone doubt the link between CO2 and humanity before. Likewise, the link between CO2 and direct effect on global temperature are also very well established; it's a very simple calculation.

Most of the published papers argue that secondary effects will enhance the temperature effect, some argue that it will be 3 times the simple calculation, and cite global temperature measurements as evidence.

The greenhouse sceptics generally argue that the secondary effects will lead to a net effect of about 0.5 times of the simple calculation, and say that the observed global temperature rise is largely due to non-human factors.

Don Clugston wrote:

> David Medlock wrote:
> 
>> - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.  Increasing C02 + more humans is not conclusive.  You need reproducible results and double blind studies, not a 'consensus'.
> 
> 
> Please rephrase. There is plenty of evidence of CO2 caused by humans. There is no evidence of CO2 caused by humans, which you find convincing.
> 
> Yet I think you've got your facts seriously wrong here. I've never heard anyone doubt the link between CO2 and humanity before. Likewise, the link between CO2 and direct effect on global temperature are also very well established; it's a very simple calculation.
> 
What I meant was: there is no evidence human-caused Co2 is causing global *catastrophic* climate change.  This is the basis of the Kyoto protocols.

There are factors you just can't work into a calculation, Don.  Of course humans produce C02, biologically and industrially.  Equating it with global climate change is another issue.  People have calculated we would run out of food before the 21st century too, that never happened either.

I was wrong about the 1 degree C increase in the 1900s, it was 0.6 degrees Celsius(source:IPCC).  We have been keeping records since 1880.

www.junkscience.com  has some calculations to disprove the doom and gloom.  They have a standing challenge for someone to prove it otherwise.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Five or ten years of data is almost nothing in terms of historical weather.  You need at least 30 to 50 to make any valid conclusions.  You know what, 30 years ago they were talking global cooling and a coming ice age!

In the 1600s a plant was weighed, then watered for 5 years.  In that time the plant increased from 5 to 169 lbs, but the soil remained the same weight.  This means the weight came from water, C02 and sunlight.

Experiments on plants have shown that even at C02 levels of 30,000 ppm there was no negative effects. (Wittwer and Robb, 1964)

Logically the conclusion is that the ecosystem is quite capable of adapting to increased C02 levels.

Given that and the less than one-degree temperature increase in the last 100 years, why exactly should I pay double(or more) for my fuels/goods?
Why should progress be stagnated over what is just a theory?

Why are countries like India and China left out of Kyoto, they will soon be the major contributors to C02 emissions?  Why was this year a nonexistant hurricane season?

Believe what you will, but don't confuse consensus and politics with science.

Sorry for the off-topic thread. I will cease posting to this topic now.

-DavidM

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:22:11 +0200, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:10:33 -0800, Kristian Kilpi <kjkilpi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 22:54:42 +0200, John Reimer <terminal.node@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:56:11 -0800, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Global warming in its work? :/
>>>>>   If there's such thing as global warming, it's not happening here.  Almost -24 C right now.  Kind of chilly! :)
>>>>
>>>> You mean it wasn't -25°C a year ago?  :-)
>>>>
>>>> Stewart.
>>>>
>>>
>>> lol :D
>>>
>>> Well, actually it's been exceptionally cold this year.  This cold snap is quite early in the season for us.  Although every winter, we typically get some -30 C weather in Jan or Feb.
>>>
>>> -JJR
>>
>> -30'C is pretty cold indeed. :) For instance, bicycling in that temperature is not so nice. (I used to bicycle to school when I was a kid. -20'C was cold enough... ;) )
>>
>> By the way, if you don't mind asking, where do you live?
>
>
> British Columbia, Canada, in a region that we call the Cariboo Interior. I've been to Rovaniemi, Finland (not sure where you are).  It's not near as far north as that.
>

Nice mountain ranges there. The views must be great there (and the nature in general). Probably a great place for hiking. :)

Rovaniemi is pretty north in Finland, I live 630 km to the south (Finland is a quite small country; it's total length is 1160 km).

Of course Rovaniemi is in north overall also; its latitude is 66.5', right on the Arctic Circle. Which plots, as we all know ;) , over northern Yokon Territory. I live near the latitude of 61', which goes over the southern Yokon or northern British Columbia.

I'm glad that the Gulf-stream warms the feather here in Finland (especially in southern parts). Without it there would be much colder!


> Actually I run to work (between 5 to 7 km depending on which route I take), all year round.  Tonight I'll be running in this temperature... fun! (I do have a headlamp) :).

Good for you! (I think that's amazing and admirable!) 8)

I can imagine that a headlamp will be handy... :)
I don't run so much. Some bicycling in summer and cross-country skiing in winter.


> It's actually not so bad, if you keep moving.
> I can't imagine bicycling to work in that temperature, though .... brrrr... windchill would make it much colder.

Yes, windchill indeed makes it cold. Your face and throat (and lower parts of your ears) tend to freeze unless properly covered with a scarf. If you don't have glasses, then your eyes will be freezing... not so comfortable.

I remember one time when I was late for school, and forgot my gloves. It wasn't so cold (only something like -5 at most), so I didn't get them. After 0.5 km or so, I have to stop and put my hands to my armpits to warm them up. Oh, youth and stupidity. :)

Don Clugston wrote:
> 
> (1) It is clear that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing significantly as a result of human activity.
> (2) It is clear that, on its own, these increased CO2 levels will increase global temperature by a couple of degrees.
> (3) It is known that global temperatures have risen over the last hundred years, and particularly over the last 30.
> (4) What is completely unknown is, what feedback mechanisms are there in the earths climate? Especially cloud formation. Feedback could be positive or negative.
> (5) The contribution of solar activity is also unknown.
> 
> (human activity) + (other causes) + (feedback mechanisms) = (observed climate change).

One issue I've never heard discussed is what impact urban development has had on climate.  In the past century, humanity has covered vast regions of the earth with stone (concrete and asphalt) that were previously forested, and has clear-cut other regions.  Both should have a measurable impact on heat absorption and reflection in affected areas, particularly in those areas where vegetation was replaced by concrete. And I suspect it's possible that the heat rising from some urban areas may be sufficient to affect local weather patterns, similar to the "artificial mountain" method of terraforming.  This may not contribute directly to a global temperature shift, but it could be enough to affect localized temperatures in some regions and possibly to affect local sea life from a corresponding shift in surface currents as well.


Sean

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:04:34 -0800, Alexander Panek <a.panek@brainsware.org> wrote:

>> - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.  Increasing C02 +
>> more humans is not conclusive.  You need reproducible results and double
>> blind studies, not a 'consensus'.
>
> Comment in #d :
> 14:01 < JimPanic> - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.
> 14:01 < downd> wtf
> 14:01  * downd breathes out
> 14:01  * downs breathes out AGAIN
> 14:02 < downs> See the CO2 yet?
>
> SIGKTHXBYE o/
>
> (Sorry, this is just too ridiculous.)


Why is CO2 a bad thing?  Don't plants use it for photosynthesis?  Wouldn't it make our planet a greener place?  Wouldn't it encourage growth of trees and plants that industrialization destroys?

Pollution seems to an important issue to deal with for health reasons alone, but I don't know how increased CO2 is going to destroy us any faster than disease, war, and bad health habits.

-JJR

What are the chances that a large meteorite will hit the earth and eliminate all further arguments on the matter of global warning? :)

What are the chances that we are all deteriorating from "pollution" of food-sources and over-dependecy on industrialization and manufacturing in which companies inject hydrogenated fats and trans-fats into most packaged foods (uninhibited), while many worry about our future of global warming in a whole system that has been known to be slowly running out of "steam" (entropy).

Folks, it's not just about junk science, it's about propaganda,  politics, and media and the pet issue of the times. The fear of global warming, there is no doubt about it, has been pushed at the public by media and politicians in tandem with a crowd of easily manipulated "scientists".  Billions of dollars have been contributed to the cause (and the Kyoto protocol)...

And, no, the "majority" of scientists do not necessarily support all the conclusions made -- perhaps the "majority" of outspoken and public scientists have supported it.  Unfortunately, those that disagree haven't been near as vocal: the peer pressure has been huge to comply with the conclusions made in what I'd call "popular" science; those that don't comply, even respected scientists, have been ostrasized -- they lose their jobs for questioning the conclusions.  This is becoming a more common situation with the science of our times as research grants are frequently sourced from powerful and biased parties.

What consititutes "junk science" seems to depend more on whim and subjectivity than on rigid scrutiny of the techniques implemented in analysis.  Howevery, even "good" science can go completely awry when research is based upon wrong fundamental assumptions (every scientist assumes some pre-conditions to the universe).  Science is not perfection, and I'm pretty sure most scientists admit that it's more like groping in the dark and making hypothesis after hypothesis until some model is devined that maps closely to observed patterns.

Further, popular global-warming theory seems to point its finger at pollution as the focus of the "problem". Pollution should be corrected for much more obvious and direct reasons than the ambiguous conclusions of global warming (I fear that's is used as political turbo system for the cause).  Pollution of most sorts are bad for society directly (through direct contact, indirect contact (vegetables, animals), ingestion, or inhalation), let alone for debatable future cataclismic climate changes.

The money that goes into solving this "problem", one in essense that is really a fuzzy picture of the future and based on even fuzzier data collection and interpretation, seems to have been outrageously ill-spent (especially the kyoto protocol) and based on more public herding of opinion than a sincere desire to find solutions to a "problem" (that's an opinion). :)

-JJR

John Reimer wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:04:34 -0800, Alexander Panek <a.panek@brainsware.org> wrote:
> 
>>> - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.  Increasing C02 +
>>> more humans is not conclusive.  You need reproducible results and double
>>> blind studies, not a 'consensus'.
>>
>> Comment in #d :
>> 14:01 < JimPanic> - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.
>> 14:01 < downd> wtf
>> 14:01  * downd breathes out
>> 14:01  * downs breathes out AGAIN
>> 14:02 < downs> See the CO2 yet?
>>
>> SIGKTHXBYE o/
>>
>> (Sorry, this is just too ridiculous.)
> 
> 
> Why is CO2 a bad thing?  Don't plants use it for photosynthesis?  Wouldn't it make our planet a greener place?  Wouldn't it encourage growth of trees and plants that industrialization destroys?
> 

Arr! Like totally. :D

> Pollution seems to an important issue to deal with for health reasons alone, but I don't know how increased CO2 is going to destroy us any faster than disease, war, and bad health habits.

Very true.

> 
> -JJR

Kristian Kilpi wrote:
> And of course cigarette companies. They *knew* 30 year ago that cigarettes is harmful and will cause cancer, they just didn't publish that information.

Cigarette smoking being harmful to health has been known for 400 years. There was no secret about it. The doctors certainly knew about it. Anyone who did an autopsy on a smoker knew about it. My father said that when he grew up before WW2 the kids called cigarettes "coffin nails."

Way more than 30 years ago, I knew cigs were harmful and would kill you, and that's why I didn't take up smoking. It was common knowledge.

It's like beer. I remember back as a teenager, a friend of mine was swigging beer. He'd joke about the billions of brain cells he was deliberately killing with each gulp. He also smoked, and his doctor told him his shortness of breath was caused by his smoking.

Smokers and drinkers know, and knew. They just don't (and didn't) care. I've talked to young smokers today. They know all about the health risks. They just don't care.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Stack class variables, bug fixes.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> 
> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.175.zip

Thanks!

The stack allocation and fixes are terrific!

For the stack allocation, I'm wondering if in future versions it would be possible to suppress the call to _d_callfinalizer if there is no dtor to call? (sometimes the RAII isn't needed, but the speed is).