January 31, 2011 at 11:30 am
Phil Factor (1/31/2011)
A great deal of space in the internet is being taken up with he debate about climate change. It isn't really a database topic, and I don't think we'll even change anyone's opinions by debating it, let alone belittling anyone with contrary views. It's off-topic.I'm just trying to point out that we need to deal with the problem of the escalating energy consumption of data centres as soon as possible, otherwise we'll be awash with legislation imposed on us, to make us do so. It is as simple as that. Offshoring this problem won't help.
Who the heck planted in our head that offshoring "anything" made theproblem go away?? The only difference is that we don't see it day to day, not that the problem is solving itself.
January 31, 2011 at 11:33 am
Actually there are lots of scientists who disagree with the whole "man-made Global Warming" theories. Over 31,000 at last count.
It has been found that the theory has flawed mathematics in it as well as flawed data. The flawed mathematics was discovered by Dr. Freeman Dyson. The models assume atmospheric pressure to be a constant (one atmosphere) and that the atmosphere is infinite. This assumption (which obviously isn't true) makes the results erroneous, they aren't based on real conditions. When the proper assumptions are made (and the math becomes much more complex), the impact of man on the temperature of the planet is negligible.
The fact of flawed data came out in ClimateGate where it was revealed that information that didn't support the current theories was not used. And just how is this science? Very simply, it's not. It's someone with a vested interest making the results what they want. And that, is propoganda, not science.
I would much rather see the money that is going into the Global Warming hysteria (excuse me, the Climate Change hysteria) go into working out how to handle the pollution, toxic chemicals and other junk that we've produced, how to get it out of the eco systems we've destroyed and to restore those eco-systems. I would also like to see research on alternative fuels actually make it out into the market rather than being stuffed away somewhere by the oil companies or whoever else stands to lose lots of money by switching away from fossil fuels.
It's a pretty planet and I would like to see it stay a pretty planet. Yes, we do need to take a look at the impact of technologies on the environment, but we need to do it in an objective manner, seeing if it helps more than it harms and only then implementing it. Unfortunately, there are too many vested interests without a long look into the future and too many goverments with knee-jerk reactions to any loony with a bullhorn.
-- Kit
January 31, 2011 at 11:55 am
Flawed data, Kit? It would appear that you are part of the misinformed group.
You say.."It has been found that the theory has flawed mathematics in it as well as flawed data. The flawed mathematics was discovered by Dr. Freeman Dyson."
Without knowing much about Dr. Dyson, I did a quick search.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
For what it's worth...some excerpts, under the topic Global warming:
Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[o]ne of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas." However, he has argued that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends....
...More recently, he has endorsed the now common usage of "global warming" as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change, referring to recent "measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science."...
...Dyson is well-aware that his "heresy" on global warming has been strongly criticized. In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."
***
My read: Dr. Dyson agrees with the overall scientifc hypothesis (technical facts), even though he doesn't know much about it (which, in itself, would tend to place doubt in why he differs on something he doesn't know much about). He doesn't argue that climate change is occuring, as you have said. He is arguing that the models that measure the exact change are not suitable for predicting future temperature change. That is an opinion that any person following the scientific process is bound to have - my model differs from your model. Don't attribute that to "the hypothesis is unture." In fact, it's exactly the opposite, based upon the excerpt above.
January 31, 2011 at 11:58 am
Ninja's_RGR'us (1/31/2011)
Phil Factor (1/31/2011)
A great deal of space in the internet is being taken up with he debate about climate change. It isn't really a database topic, and I don't think we'll even change anyone's opinions by debating it, let alone belittling anyone with contrary views. It's off-topic.I'm just trying to point out that we need to deal with the problem of the escalating energy consumption of data centres as soon as possible, otherwise we'll be awash with legislation imposed on us, to make us do so. It is as simple as that. Offshoring this problem won't help.
Who the heck planted in our head that offshoring "anything" made theproblem go away?? The only difference is that we don't see it day to day, not that the problem is solving itself.
Wow - That's a gross misrepresentation of Dr. Dyson's views. From Wikipedia...
"Global warmingDyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[o]ne of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."[22] However, he has argued that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends:
The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in...[22]
He is among signatories of a letter to the UN criticizing the IPCC[23][24][25] and has also argued against the ostracization of scientists whose views depart from the acknowledged mainstream of scientific opinion on climate change, stating that "heretics" have historically been an important force in driving scientific progress. "[H]eretics who question the dogmas are needed... I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies."[22]
More recently, he has endorsed the now common usage of "global warming" as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change, referring to recent "measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science."[26]
He has, however, argued that political efforts to reduce the causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority:
I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.[27]
Since originally taking interest in climate studies in the 1970s, Dyson has suggested that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could be controlled by planting fast-growing trees. He calculates that it would take a trillion trees to remove all carbon from the atmosphere.[28][29]
Dyson is well-aware that his "heresy" on global warming has been strongly criticized. In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."[13]"
January 31, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Onto the original topic : Data center energy consumption...
Phil's point is also a debatable topic, as most organizations lack the impetus to change unless a cost is imposed on them. If market forces don't do it, the other force is the one we elect to oversee large projects that look after the welfare of the population - i.e. the government. Such large projects that they undertake are the ones we need to pay for collectively, and these include our protective forces (military, police), our exploration (ex. - space program), and even our beloved socialized medical system (know as Medicare and Medicaid to you anti-governmental health care proponents). They also set up some of the rules to try to make our games fair (see : Securities & Exchange Commission), and see that corporate entities play fair, too (consumer protection, clean air act, etc).
Can organizations impose their own limitations on data center energy use? If we just keep dumping low cost coal in the burner, keeping energy costs artificially low (because the external costs such as environmental impact are not factored into the true cost), then in my opinion, like Dr. Dyson's, the market model is broken. At that point, legislating what is good for us as a whole can be a necessary option, as it adds in some true costs that have not be internalized into the current market model.
January 31, 2011 at 1:03 pm
pflipper (1/31/2011)
This doesn't seem like the place to debate things like global climate change, but to echo Ten Centuries, I also hate to see misinformation spread unchecked.Making statements such as saying that the science of climate change is not fully established yet, saying global warming is media-generated pseudo science, are totally off base and untrue. Further, in my opinion, these statements are incomprehensible based upon the fact that there is a very learned population that participate in this forum, and write articles produced for this publication. For those who call yourselves computer scientists, you should understand the scientific process, not subscribe to the misinformed bluster of isolationists. The overwhelming majority in the scientific community accept the hypothesis that the planet's temperature has risen approx. 1.4 degrees F over the past 120 years (much of it in the last decade), to levels not reached in 2000 plus years. There is no real dispute on the data. The question becomes: "Are the changes human-made?" There, too, much of the scientific community accept that humans are affecting the change, so there is a real desire to determine how much is due to humans, and how it will affect all life on this planet.
This is not "chicken little" talk - this is a calculated assessment based upon data. For people who work with data, I would expect you to pay attention to it, not the rhetoric of some uninformed media types who wish to label scientific thought with perceptions of liberal-biased media thought.
Do you spend money to pursue a hypothesis to get real information to determine what the future holds, or do you choose to ignore the existing data and hide your head in the sand?
Pity the debate has drifted into partisan rubbish with both sides spoutiung nonsense, and the few [people talking sense being tarred people like you (and others on the opposite side too) with the same brush.
Stating that there is no dispute on the data is an endorsement of the idea that adjusting one's data to fit ones theories and destroying the original unadjueted data is good science, and cherry picking the data is good science too. So I can't agree with it, whichever hat (scientist or mathematician) I'm wearing.
Saying that global warming is media-generated pseudo science is clearly totally off-base and untrue, as you claim. However stating as you do that saying that the science of climate change is not fully established yet is totally off-base and untrue is utter nonsense, clearly you are in denial about the lack of clarity and certainty in the evidence (much as some of those on the other side are clear in denial about the need to investigate and to take reasonable precautionary measures).
But precautionary measures need to be reasonable. Measures that reduce I capability to survive global warming should it turn out not to be man made are probably not sensible. Neither are environmental measures that risk increasing global warming.
Should we reverse some of our earlier pro-environment policies? For example go back to old fasioned cooling fluid in fridges - after all, we probably did as much to cause global warming by protecting the ozone layer as we ever did by burning coal - or does the ozone layer matter more than the temperature? Doesn't that little side-effect of protecting the ozone layer suggest that hurried and ill-considered action may be rather silly?
If you think a 1.4F rise in 120 years is fast you have been taken in by some of the media-generated hype. It's peanuts. If it carries on (sepecially if it also accelerates) for a long time it will be a problem that we don't want, so we need to investigate what causes it.
If you think that we have any serious evidence as to how much of the current warming is man made, you are living in cloud cuckoo land: we have none at all, because we can't run controlled experiments and we don't have detailed records of how the ends of ice ages (note that I'm using the term "ice age" in its glaciological sense rather than misusing it to refer to glacial periods within an ice age because this should be a scientific discussion and a scientific discussion should use scientific terminology) have come about previously. Maybe we are heading for an non-ice age now for the same reason as the last time it happened - we have no knowledge of what that reason was or whether it applies today. Maybe we the current ice age will not end any time soon and the current warming is just a short-term fluctuation. The current ice age has lasted since the beginning of the pleistocene (about 2.6 million years ago) and has certainly seen times with higher atmospheric CO2 content than now (eg 325,000 years ago, according to the Vostok ice core research), none of which managed to end it. There have been some very heavy fluctuations during the current ice age epoch, for example there was a swing from glacial ice-age to interglacial ice age over a couple of thousand years ending about 15,000 years ago and that's just one of many flips (in both directions) between glacial and interglacial periods of the current ice age.
Tom
January 31, 2011 at 1:21 pm
When it comes to global warming theories, personally, I tend to go with the "when the sun is hotter, we're hotter; when the sun is cooler, we're cooler" theory. The ice caps on Mars are melting due to increased solar activity. There's no man there to interfer with the planet's temperature. So if Mars is experiencing warming due to increased solar activity, warming enough to melt its ice caps, seems reasonable to me, that Earth would experience the same warming, to an even greater degree as we are just a wee bit closer to the Sun than Mars is. Question of Global Warming solved. Now let's go tackle some other problem, like plastic in the Pacific Ocean.
I feel that the problem with Global Warming is that it has a polictical agenda. Science and politics don't go well together. Data is being used that supports one theory while those who disagree are being shut out of the equation and the result is scare tactics and propoganda.
The data that I've been able to get a hold of supports my belief that Global Warming is a hoax with the purpose of generating said scare tactics and propoganda. This is evidenced by the fact that when the disbelievers speak up, they get shut down. If the Global Warming community was actually open to finding out the truth, one would think they would also be open to dissenting data and opinions to compare with and figure out what really is going on. I thought we were beyond Galileo's experience with the the Catholic Church and his "heresies" being condemned.
-- Kit
January 31, 2011 at 2:27 pm
This is what really worries me about facing problems, whatever the problem may be.
On one hand, you have a community that uses scientific process, gathering and interpreting data on what are observable phenomena, using the best known tools in trying to gather the best data, and hopefully, coming up with a reasonable consensus for what the data tells us (notice, I didn’t say unanimous consensus). Not all observations point directly to the truth, but hopefully, if you get enough smart people in the room, you can reach a logical consensus on what is close to the truth.
On the other hand, you have people who don’t really trust the scientific community and reject the basis of many a hypothesis, not because the data indicates that they do so - solely because they want to push their own agenda or their own beliefs. These people reject a scientific consensus without any scientific basis for their beliefs (“seems reasonable to me” - ?!), or some slanted view (see Mars is warming argument at http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-basic.htm), or maybe that use incendiary language such as “you are living in cloud cuckoo land” and “Global Warming is a hoax.“ Unfortunately, contrary to what these people would have you believe, they are the ones with the bullhorn, spouting their rhetoric as truth, and shouting down what is becoming a good basis of scientific knowledge to the contrary.
I’m no global warming scientist. I also don’t purport to be a paleontologist, botanist, stock broker, oncologist, social worker, or train engineer, and I’m not going to begin to tell them that what they’ve developed as a theory over the years of their experience is a bunch of bunk without first developing some insight into the science and the data. I would challenge those detractors to quit your line of work and go become a scientist who studies these phenomena. Maybe then we’ll take your opinion as something other than the rhetoric of big money and others who would suppress knowledge in the favor of the status quo, (like the Catholic Church, as you mention).
January 31, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Thank you for bringing us back to the original topic.
It is true that sometimes government is the only way to get something important, expensive, or highly unpleasant, done. For example, it's hard to imagine fighting WWII without a government body to tax, draft, coordinate, and discipline.
And yet, as anyone who has worked for the goverment or seen it in operation knows, a large-government solution to a large problem will be packed with bureaucracy, waste, harmful side effects, incompetence, complacency, and graft.
As much as people complain about fat-cat, bloated, profit-obsessed corporations and private companies (much of it deserved), they have a much better record of effectiveness and efficiency--if they can be convinced to put their best foot forward, which usually comes down to cost/benefit for the owners (which may be you if you live in the U.S. and have a 401-K for your retirement).
To me, the question boils down to "how can private enterprise benefit from freely investing its own resources into energy-efficient data center operation"? I recall quite a number of articles over the past few years stating that many are already doing so because they have seen that it costs less over the long run. If that is happening already, then the worst possible thing we could do is have the federal government come in and mess things up. Let's keep the government out--completely out--of this one.
January 31, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who watches the watchmen?
I've worked in both government and industry, and I will tell you with certainty: both can be bloated, wasteful, political, etc. when not run efficiently. What people like to imagine with industry is this utopia of the invisible hand, guiding our lives benevolently. We just have to set the wheels in motion, then sit back while everything in our lives is handled to our benefit by our corporations. These same people view their our governing body with disdain, thinking that they are doing nothing but wasting the tax that is taken from our beloved paychecks.
Slowly now, you are coming back to reality now....slowly...at the snap of my fingers, you will be in reality. Snap!
Anyone who knows their history, from child labor, to medicines that killed, to the military industrial complex, to Covairs, to Love Canal, to Bhopal, to Silverado, ....why, so many examples that it could bring this server down; anyone aware of these and other examples will not blindly accept corporate solutions. Heck, I didn't even touch upon the inefficiencies (GM), and graft (Enron) that goes on in corporate America.
We have a voice in two places - with our money vote, and our electoral vote, and neither gives us much power to set policy. The best policy is to make government and corporate interests work together. Expecting a solution out of only one of these is blind faith, leads to it's own inefficiencies, and is generally not too smart. Energy policy should not be left solely to market forces. As I mentioned before, the market equation model is currently flawed - it does not take into account all costs.
Who will watch the watchmen?
January 31, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Your points are well taken, although in some of the examples (e.g., military industrial complex) government ineffectiveness greatly contributed to the problem rather than offset it.
But I think you missed the point: how can the industry be convinced to put their own efforts into making power-efficient data centers? If the ONLY way to do so is government, with all the problems it will lead to, so be it. But in this case the industry is ALREADY going there. It's ALREADY in their interest to do so. Why be so eager to rush in and screw it up?
January 31, 2011 at 6:52 pm
RML51 (1/31/2011)
Dyson is well-aware that his "heresy" on global warming has been strongly criticized. In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."[13]"
Let#' face it: anyone who has intolerance to criticism is not a real scientist. That, clearly, is Dyson's point - science is about discussion and disagreement, not about the received word, the irrevocable dogma handed down. The general approach of followers of the MMGW mantra is something like religious bigotism, and that's what upsets Dyson. It should upset everyone who has a care for science too, but unfortunately we have a situation where the scientific method is deprecated because the PTB (politicians not scientists) have chosen to ensure that research funding supports a particular POV. What really scares me is that these braindead unscientific biogots may be right, despite their total disregard for the scientific method, because we haven't yet done enough investigation. If they turn out to be right it could disgrace all real science, which is really scary, simply because the politicians are too damned stupid to distinguish those who can make a lucky guess fro those who know what they are talking about. Of course if the CC-sceptics turn out to b right it will be just as bad - th epoliticians will again believe the extremist nutcases who had no evidence for their version, and believe their next story too.
Tom
January 31, 2011 at 7:13 pm
pflipper (1/31/2011)
On one hand, you have a community that uses scientific process, gathering and interpreting data on what are observable phenomena, using the best known tools in trying to gather the best data, and hopefully, coming up with a reasonable consensus for what the data tells us (notice, I didn’t say unanimous consensus).
What reasonable concensus? Can you name me a few professional statisticians) or any other sort of mathematician - we are not generally as statistically illeterate as other scientists) who are prepared to accept what the MMGW crowd are doing with the data? There's no bloody concensus, let alone a reasonable one. What tiny sembalce of a concencus exists arises solely because currently (because of fashion, politics, and vested interests) it's extremely difficult to get researh funding unless you follow the party line. If people were still doing science instead of persuing funding in a tiotally prejudiced situation we would see discussion of the issues instead of denial that there are any.
Tom
January 31, 2011 at 7:20 pm
pflipper (1/31/2011)
On the other hand, you have people who don’t really trust the scientific community and reject the basis of many a hypothesis, not because the data indicates that they do so - solely because they want to push their own agenda or their own beliefs.
Are you suggesting that I, and othere people who disagree with you, donm't trust the scientific community?
Wqake up you idiot!!! We ARE the scientific community!
And some of use might just decide (because US law allows us to do it) to sue you for libel in the UK courts, because that is a disgusting and disgraceful libel. On the other hand we might not, as your comments have no value and will not affetc our reoputations.
Tom
January 31, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Tom.Thomson (1/31/2011)
Are you suggesting that I, and othere people who disagree with you, donm't trust the scientific community?Wqake up you idiot!!! We ARE the scientific community!
And some of use might just decide (because US law allows us to do it) to sue you for libel in the UK courts, because that is a disgusting and disgraceful libel. On the other hand we might not, as your comments have no value and will not affetc our reoputations.
How can I take this post seriously, Tom, if you don't have enough attention to detail to correct your own spelling mistakes. That kind of lack of attention to detail really detracts from your post, and points again to the need for those on the opposite side of the climate change argument to pay more attention to the details.
Another detraction is your vitriolic tone, which doesn't lend itself to professional discourse on a topic where we find ourselves in need of ways to agree on how to solve this problem. Look at those who disagree - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
- and I think you will find many people agreeing that global warming trends are happening. That's not in question, even for many of the so-called detractors. The item in question is what I mentioned before - "What is this change from?"
The mainstream view is that this is the result of human activity. If your views differ - great! There is open room for civil discourse in the scientific community. Show us your hypothesis of what is the cause of this climate change is. Oh - if you are on the wrong path, the downside is rather large - upheaval of weather patterns, endangerment of worldwide agricultural economy, destruction of species in oceans and all continents, mass migration of populations. That's not a scare tactic - that's thinking of the implications of a change that we don't fully understand. So if you are leading the thinking in public policy in the regard - make sure your get it right, Tom.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 41 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply